|
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
A Whack Job on
Reality
By Kate Burch
What is the first thing we notice about a person we encounter?
Even if the person exhibits a feature that is outside of the average or
normal range, such as extreme stature or girth, remarkable beauty or
ugliness, a noticeable disability, or attire that stands out because it
is unusual or very handsome or ugly, we are not likely to report to a
friend, “I saw someone today who had the most incredible
turquoise-colored eyes. I don’t know whether it was a man or a
woman.” Yes, the first thing we notice about another is their
gender and, seeing that, we are primed with a myriad of expectations
about how that person will behave and relate, and also with behavioral
“sets” concerning how we will relate to that individual.
A wealth of research in the fields of neurobiology, cultural
anthropology, and evolutionary psychology have answered the question as
to whether there is an objective and universal male and female
nature. The answer is a resounding “yes.” Attempts to mute
sex differences by giving young children gender-neutral playthings, for
example, have failed. Little boys are likely to see how far they
can throw the baby doll or use the toy broom as a pretend sword, while
little girls will wrap the toy truck in a blanket and put it tenderly
to bed. While males and females are certainly much more
alike than different, we are different, and the differences are
observed cross-culturally. Differences exist not only in such
obvious realms as body configuration, size, and strength, but also in
patterns of mental aptitudes, abilities, and skills; reaction time;
sensory-perceptual capacities; emotional functioning; interest and
preference patterns; and interpersonal behaviors.
Research over the last few decades has provided much understanding of
the differences between male and female brains that underlie the
observed differences in thinking, feeling, and behaving. We are
also learning more and more about the causes of anomalies such as
same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder. As most of you
probably know, a newly-conceived human will inherit either two X
chromosomes and, in the normal course of things, develop into a female
infant; or an X and a Y chromosome and develop into a male
infant. But it is not only the chromosomal information that is
necessary; there must also be an appropriate hormonal environment in
the womb for normal sexual development of the fetus. In the
absence of testosterone, the XY embryo will be born looking like a
normal female. Conversely, an XX embryo exposed to testosterone
in utero will be born looking like a normal male. So, something
extra is required for development of body and brain into the typical
male pattern. Additionally, there are stages of development of
maleness or femaleness, in utero, mediated by bursts of testosterone,
and if something goes awry in one or more of these stages, variations
on the usual pattern will occur. The stages of development may be
thought of as corresponding to basic sex-linked behavioral patterns
(aggressiveness vs. passivity;) sexual identity; sexual object choice
(whether attracted to males or females;) and the control centers for
the reproductive organs. Male fetuses are thus more vulnerable to
“mistakes” that may result in homosexuality, gender identity disorder,
or other sexual anomalies. Indeed, the incidence of both
conditions is much greater among males than females.
So, gender is much, much more than merely a social construct, as some
wish us to believe. There are people who are born with abnormal
configurations of all aspects that make up one’s sexuality. The
proportions are small, however, and so if one has respect for the
English language they must be designated as abnormal. Mass media
depictions have led to fabulously inflated estimates by young people of
the prevalence of homosexuality. One intelligent young man I
recently encountered guessed that about 25% of people were “gay.”
The actual number is within the range of 1% to 3%. Gender
identity disorder is almost vanishingly rare at roughly one-twentieth
of one percent of the population. People so afflicted deserve our
compassion and respect. It is a good thing that people with
same-sex attraction and those with gender identity disorder are met
with greater acceptance and protected from unfair discrimination.
It is not a good thing when homosexual or transgender affectations or
lifestyle are glamorized. It is not a good thing when parents of
young children who express a wish to be the opposite gender or show
signs of confusion rush to conclude that their child is a transsexual
and put in place medical and/or other “therapeutic” interventions to
support a sex-change process. In truth, gender “confusion” is
fairly common among young children, and it almost always resolves
within a few years. It is not a good thing when large numbers of
young people are given the impression that their sex, one of the most
basic aspects of identity, is fluid, and that simply feeling
uncomfortable in typical sex roles means that one is not really a man
or a woman. It is not a good thing to underplay the real peril
that people with such abnormalities face, such as a 41% rate of
attempted suicide with gender identity disorder. It is not a good
thing when there is agitation for unisex restrooms and locker rooms,
creating perfect conditions for voyeurism, exhibitionism, and other
forms of abuse of young girls and women subjected to predation by males
posing as transsexuals.
We can find, surely, ways to accommodate the needs of such people
without violating the dignity and safety of others. The Japanese
and the French are ahead of us in designing public facilities that are
private and even self-cleaning, and ingenious Americans will surely do
likewise. In the meantime, I hope that we can get free ourselves
from ideological shackles concerning gender and come back to
reality. Vive la difference!
|
|
|
|
